Is the race stated in your BC/IC legal?
The issue of your race has never been so controversial, so ambiguous, so
subjective and so disputable until this minority election for an EP
comes into being. Everyone is now questioning what his race means to his
opportunity to qualify for the appointment of the EP. While the heat is
now on in how to define what is a Malay and Malayness, many have
forgotten the meaning of race as stated in the BC/IC. Is this still valid
and still legal? Is a person a Malay or Indian or Chinese or Others as
stated in his BC/IC or is that person something else?
Going backwards, when a child is born, the most important decision and a
natural thing to do for the parents are to identify which race the
child belongs. This is instinctive and the real identity of the child
that the parents want the child to be. They have consciously chosen,
declared and made a decision for life for the child.
What is happening today is that this important decision of choice is
questionable and may not be legal. A person with a particular race
stated in his/her BC/IC could not be what was stated in the BC/IC. A Malay may
not be a Malay or an Indian may not be an Indian, and so is a Chinese
or Others.
Would this new development have any implications other than just the
qualification to stand as an EP candidate? Many govt polices are race
related like HDB, education, social organisations etc etc. When one's
identity in the BC/IC is subject to question and challenge, what would it
make of the BC/IC, an official document that tells the identity of a
person?
Can the Committee deciding what or who is a Malay reject a person that
is officially stated as a Malay in his/her BC/IC? Can the same Committee
decide that a person that is officially stated as a non Malay be
officially ‘accepted’ as a Malay despite what is stated in the BC/IC? How
would such an issue be ruled in the courts of law should race be in
question, is the person what he is as stated in his BC/IC?
The problem of this confusion of racial identity is not just about the
EP but about a whole series of complex govt policies and regulations and
the social fabric of the country. This is a problem that is self
created and is not going to go away just by a few simplistic rulings by a
Committee that now appears to have the right and authority to change
the race of a person.
What is happening?
Would there be more stringent checks and conditions before one can
register a child belonging to an ethnic group at birth given this new
development, that parents cannot anyhow hantam the race of the child in
the BC/IC when being an ethnic minority comes with exceptional privileges?
7/23/2017
Japanese soldiers fighting in Sudan
The cover up of activities by Japanese soldiers in Sudan in the logs of
Japanese soldiers has raised doubts of the participation of Japanese
soldiers fighting in Sudan. The soldiers were sent there as peacekeepers
under the UN mission. Japan has prohibited sending soldiers into theatres
of war and would only allow Japanese soldiers in places where a ceasefire
is in place.
Apparently in the case of Sudan when fighting was escalated, the removal or non admission of logs by Japanese soldiers in Sudan has led to suspicion that the Japanese govt is hiding something and what they are hiding is Japanese soldiers involved in fighting on the ground in Sudan.
Japanese defence expert Tosh Minohara has been quoted to have said this about the cover up. ‘We all know that things were getting nasty in South Sudan. If the logs recorded fighting by Japanese troops, what will be the political fallout?’
ST’s Japan correspondent in Tokyo was reported in the ST to have said this, ‘At a meeting in February, Defence Minister Tomomi Inada was said to have given the nod to her top officials to hide the existence of activity logs maintained by ground forces in South Sudan….The controversy started brewing last December after the Defence Ministry declined an information disclosure request for the logs from the media, which had noted the worsening situation in South Sudan since July last year….’
What is the Japanese govt trying to hide or to lie to the Japanese people and the people of the world, that Japanese troops have engaged in actual warfare again? After having lied about their war atrocities across Asia, about comfort women, it is not unusual for the Japanese to lie again about the truth in Sudan.
Japanese soldiers have conducting warfare again, forbidden by their Constitution and their pledge not to conduct war after their defeat in the Second World War. And they are going to hide this truth.
Apparently in the case of Sudan when fighting was escalated, the removal or non admission of logs by Japanese soldiers in Sudan has led to suspicion that the Japanese govt is hiding something and what they are hiding is Japanese soldiers involved in fighting on the ground in Sudan.
Japanese defence expert Tosh Minohara has been quoted to have said this about the cover up. ‘We all know that things were getting nasty in South Sudan. If the logs recorded fighting by Japanese troops, what will be the political fallout?’
ST’s Japan correspondent in Tokyo was reported in the ST to have said this, ‘At a meeting in February, Defence Minister Tomomi Inada was said to have given the nod to her top officials to hide the existence of activity logs maintained by ground forces in South Sudan….The controversy started brewing last December after the Defence Ministry declined an information disclosure request for the logs from the media, which had noted the worsening situation in South Sudan since July last year….’
What is the Japanese govt trying to hide or to lie to the Japanese people and the people of the world, that Japanese troops have engaged in actual warfare again? After having lied about their war atrocities across Asia, about comfort women, it is not unusual for the Japanese to lie again about the truth in Sudan.
Japanese soldiers have conducting warfare again, forbidden by their Constitution and their pledge not to conduct war after their defeat in the Second World War. And they are going to hide this truth.
7/22/2017
Second Sino Indian border war in the making
The lesson in 1962 was not taken seriously, or not hard enough for India
to learn not to trifle with the PLA. In 1962, the PLA was literally a
peasant army, poorly equipped, against the India Army, equipped with the
best leftovers from the British Empire. Still, given the advantage of
modern weapons and several years of preparation in the building of the
4th Army Corp and the element of surprise and initiative, India was
knocked unconscious within a matters of 2 weeks by the PLA.
Today the world is looking at almost an identical situation in the China Bhutan border. Though again India is claiming that China was the provocateur like in 1962, the facts today are current and fresh for all to see. China was building a road along the China Bhutan border, nothing to do with India except that Bhutan was a de facto protectorate of India. India claimed that it was Bhutan that was asking India to intervene though it was obvious that it was India that wanted to intervene in the dispute. And India took the first step to move troops into the disputed area but accusing China of doing so. In the first place the dispute has nothing to do with India.
Now both sides are moving thousands of troops to the region. And India, like in 1962, is saying that it would not back down, spoiling for a fight with China. India must not forget that the PLA today is fully operational and supported by all the four arms of China’s military might, modern and well equipped that India can never think of matching. There is nothing that Indians have that is superior or equivalent to what the Chinese have.
This time the mismatch in the two forces is even more stark though India as usual thinks it has an upper hand and would want to try its luck a second time. This time the PLA would not be so gracious and merciful and the body blow would be hard and heavy. The China of today is no longer in a state to be nice to India. And if the Indians think they want to play with fire, with implicit support from the Americans, then they would be in for a rude shock.
India may think it has arrived, that it is a world power and could do as it pleased, even to take on China. Go ahead, but don’t regret when history repeats itself. The first time was ignorance, the second time is stupidity, to repeat the same mistake. This time the Chinese are well prepared and no more surprises and sneak attacks. The Chinese will deal with the Indian forces head on from day one. They are ready, knowing what the Indians would do from the 1962 experience to take advantage of a surprise attack against an unprepared enemy. This time China is waiting.
Today the world is looking at almost an identical situation in the China Bhutan border. Though again India is claiming that China was the provocateur like in 1962, the facts today are current and fresh for all to see. China was building a road along the China Bhutan border, nothing to do with India except that Bhutan was a de facto protectorate of India. India claimed that it was Bhutan that was asking India to intervene though it was obvious that it was India that wanted to intervene in the dispute. And India took the first step to move troops into the disputed area but accusing China of doing so. In the first place the dispute has nothing to do with India.
Now both sides are moving thousands of troops to the region. And India, like in 1962, is saying that it would not back down, spoiling for a fight with China. India must not forget that the PLA today is fully operational and supported by all the four arms of China’s military might, modern and well equipped that India can never think of matching. There is nothing that Indians have that is superior or equivalent to what the Chinese have.
This time the mismatch in the two forces is even more stark though India as usual thinks it has an upper hand and would want to try its luck a second time. This time the PLA would not be so gracious and merciful and the body blow would be hard and heavy. The China of today is no longer in a state to be nice to India. And if the Indians think they want to play with fire, with implicit support from the Americans, then they would be in for a rude shock.
India may think it has arrived, that it is a world power and could do as it pleased, even to take on China. Go ahead, but don’t regret when history repeats itself. The first time was ignorance, the second time is stupidity, to repeat the same mistake. This time the Chinese are well prepared and no more surprises and sneak attacks. The Chinese will deal with the Indian forces head on from day one. They are ready, knowing what the Indians would do from the 1962 experience to take advantage of a surprise attack against an unprepared enemy. This time China is waiting.
7/21/2017
Red Dot’s diplomacy
The govt has been harping on the criticism by Kishore Mahbubani over its
hiccup in its relation with China. The angst over the episode is very
hard to get over with in several quarters meaning that what Kishore had
said must have been painful to the ears of some. Over the last few days
the govt has came out very strongly with its principled position
diplomacy as if it is some unknown gem that must be displayed for all to
see.
The key points were guarding and protecting our national interests and territorial integrity and also punching above our weight. The message, Singapore would walk around with a loudspeaker to make sure everyone heard us, that Singapore is not some little country to be trifled with.
Vivian Balakrishnan even called a townhall meeting and had it broadcasted over the national media about how big Singapore was and is, that we are the champion of small states and the interests of small states and the rule of law. Who is/are the intended audience of this ‘koyok’ selling session? Is Kishore the main target, that he had rubbed people the wrong way and must be put in his place? Or are the audience the neighbouring countries or China, the country that was poked, oops, some denied that we did that, and was not amused?
What did Kishore say that must be straightened out? I heard that Kishore was accused of saying something like being small we must compromise our principles and interests, that we should bend out heads and be kicked around or something like that. I am very sure Kishore did not say such things or implied either. It is an over exaggeration to put words into Kishore’s mouth that as a small state we should not speak up and allow others to trample all over us. Kishore was very outspoken on such issues when he was our rep in the UN and the US.
In Vivian’s townhall speech I got it that it was all about ‘we’ or ‘us’ and our interest, that these should not be compromised, our principles, our integrity. No one can dispute such arguments. Even all the smallest states that have been very quiet in their diplomacy would guard their interests and principles vehemently. And I think all the big powers would also appreciate and would accept such a position of small states. But bully they would if conditions allowed.
In diplomacy it is all about influencing other countries to support one’s position and interest. Every country, big and small, is doing this. Singapore too is doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong and unacceptable is to reveal what were said behind closed doors. This is a breach of confidentiality and faith. There is no need to wash such laundry in the open. Behind closed doors, many things would be said, there would be horse trading of all shades and colours. Take your positions or turn down the offers, but there is no need to kpkb in the open about what was spoken. This country or that country wanted us to do this or that. This is bad manners and poor taste in diplomacy!
And in the cause of protecting our principles and interests, it does not mean that we can go around compromising other people’s principles and interests. While we are talking about ‘we and us’ there is a need to know if we have violated or compromise the principles and interests of other parties. A good example is the hosting of American air and naval forces here. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in our national interest to want the Americans to be here. But we need to be careful of what the Americans are doing to others. And we need to be careful in what we said and why the Americans are here for. Telling China that the Americans are invited here to balance their influence is very unfriendly. Some things are left better unsaid. If the Americans are using our facilities to violate, intimidate or threaten the interests of our neighbours or other countries, can we walk around with a halo over our heads and proclaim we are innocent, none of our business, we are not involved?
Every nation state would pursue their national interest at all cost. But while doing so, and it compromises the interest of other states, then it is not so innocent and acceptable by others and one can expect consequences. The Americans’ provocative and belligerent behavior in the South China Sea, and operating from our shores, would not be accepted kindly and would affect our relations with China for sure. Do not do unto others if we don’t want others to do unto us. This must also be a key principle in diplomacy. It cannot be always about ‘we and us’ with no regards to others. This is elementary. This is decency.
The key points were guarding and protecting our national interests and territorial integrity and also punching above our weight. The message, Singapore would walk around with a loudspeaker to make sure everyone heard us, that Singapore is not some little country to be trifled with.
Vivian Balakrishnan even called a townhall meeting and had it broadcasted over the national media about how big Singapore was and is, that we are the champion of small states and the interests of small states and the rule of law. Who is/are the intended audience of this ‘koyok’ selling session? Is Kishore the main target, that he had rubbed people the wrong way and must be put in his place? Or are the audience the neighbouring countries or China, the country that was poked, oops, some denied that we did that, and was not amused?
What did Kishore say that must be straightened out? I heard that Kishore was accused of saying something like being small we must compromise our principles and interests, that we should bend out heads and be kicked around or something like that. I am very sure Kishore did not say such things or implied either. It is an over exaggeration to put words into Kishore’s mouth that as a small state we should not speak up and allow others to trample all over us. Kishore was very outspoken on such issues when he was our rep in the UN and the US.
In Vivian’s townhall speech I got it that it was all about ‘we’ or ‘us’ and our interest, that these should not be compromised, our principles, our integrity. No one can dispute such arguments. Even all the smallest states that have been very quiet in their diplomacy would guard their interests and principles vehemently. And I think all the big powers would also appreciate and would accept such a position of small states. But bully they would if conditions allowed.
In diplomacy it is all about influencing other countries to support one’s position and interest. Every country, big and small, is doing this. Singapore too is doing the same thing. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong and unacceptable is to reveal what were said behind closed doors. This is a breach of confidentiality and faith. There is no need to wash such laundry in the open. Behind closed doors, many things would be said, there would be horse trading of all shades and colours. Take your positions or turn down the offers, but there is no need to kpkb in the open about what was spoken. This country or that country wanted us to do this or that. This is bad manners and poor taste in diplomacy!
And in the cause of protecting our principles and interests, it does not mean that we can go around compromising other people’s principles and interests. While we are talking about ‘we and us’ there is a need to know if we have violated or compromise the principles and interests of other parties. A good example is the hosting of American air and naval forces here. There is nothing wrong with that and it is in our national interest to want the Americans to be here. But we need to be careful of what the Americans are doing to others. And we need to be careful in what we said and why the Americans are here for. Telling China that the Americans are invited here to balance their influence is very unfriendly. Some things are left better unsaid. If the Americans are using our facilities to violate, intimidate or threaten the interests of our neighbours or other countries, can we walk around with a halo over our heads and proclaim we are innocent, none of our business, we are not involved?
Every nation state would pursue their national interest at all cost. But while doing so, and it compromises the interest of other states, then it is not so innocent and acceptable by others and one can expect consequences. The Americans’ provocative and belligerent behavior in the South China Sea, and operating from our shores, would not be accepted kindly and would affect our relations with China for sure. Do not do unto others if we don’t want others to do unto us. This must also be a key principle in diplomacy. It cannot be always about ‘we and us’ with no regards to others. This is elementary. This is decency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)